Angry Charlie Reviews

LATE, LATE 2008 REVIEWS

>> Monday, August 31, 2009

It’s been a slow month for me as far as getting to see new movies go. There are a few on my list to see – Inglorious Bastards, District 9, GI Joe, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, 500 Days of Summer, and Halloween 2 (I expect it to be awful, I wasn’t a fan of the first one but I’m a fan if the series, so we’ll see). I hope to get to those eventually (probably in the cheap theatre due to budgetary restraints as of late). But most of them look promising. In the mean time, I look forward to having some summer bad movie fun tomorrow as I head to The Final Destination in 3-D. I expect this flick to be bad, but hopefully it’s fun. I have nothing against movies that can almost make fun of themselves. The director of Snakes on a Plane helms this project, so I hope he doesn’t let us down.

In the meantime however, in an effort to update my blog, and provide some substance, I’ve decided to do a very, very late review of some movies from 2008.

*These are in no particular order within each category

TOP 3:

Tropic Thunder

Robert Downey Jr. got a Best Supporting Actor nod from the Academy for his role as an Australian who plays a black man who is a soldier; Tom Cruise has sausage fingers, and Tobey McGuire pretends to be a gay Monk in a trailer preceding the film. This is one of those films, much like the Ocean series, that has a lot of great stars, who are there for no other reason than to have fun, make a movie within a movie, and do all with style and pizazz. It reminds me of a movie much like Shaun of the Dead, or Hot Fuzz - basically, a spoof movie (in this case a Vietnam flick) done right. None of this Disaster Movie crap.

Wall-E

It’s Pixar, Disney/Pixar. It’s like jumping into a Porsche, or walking into a Beverly Hills home. You don’t go in expecting crap, because you never get crap. This film played back to the days before talkies came along, and did it with heart, and a non-overly environmental message. Attention Evan Almighty. Wall-E was beautiful, and absolutely perfect.

The Dark Knight

I don’t think there is one Top 10 or Favourite Movie list from last year that didn’t include this film on its list. Why? Because this movie kicked ass. That’s as simple as it gets. It was funny, scary, action-packed and the acting was pristine. Do I have a hard-on for Knight? Yes! And I am proud to say it and display it. This all is taken into account before thinking about the even darker idea that Heath Ledger put so much life into the character of the Joker that it literally killed him. His performance was brilliant, and he deserved the Oscar for it. Speaking of the Oscars and Heath Ledger, I know his family had a nice 25 minute long speech prepared for him, but does that mean that they Academy couldn’t have included him in the In Memoriam thing they do every year. Like give me a break.

Honourable Mentions: Slumdog Millionaire, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, The Incredible Hulk

WORST 3:

Disaster Movie

This film is almost so bad it barely deserves to be even mentioned here, not once, but twice (*see above). The most memorable part of this movie? The fact that it inspired my friend Dave Gassner to be Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men. It was a great costume as you can see by below. Well done, Dave!

The Love Guru

No doubt Mike Myers made this film in an attempt to create another Austin Powers franchise. Unfortunately, it wasn’t Austin Powers, which might explain why a fourth one is in development. Best thing about this film, it’s nod to Canada (maybe it’s more of an insult than anything). The worst thing about this film, it’s embarrassingly bad use of Ben Kingsley, maybe the one person that could have saved this film. Actually, no, I take that back. There were a lot of people that could have made this film better – the writers, the director, the creator, the studio . . .

Hamlet 2

This film disappointed me mainly because I expected a clever and witty take on censorship. Not to mention it came to us from the producers of South Park. No, not Matt and Trey, their producers. Either way, unfortunately this movie had more heart than I would have liked or it needed, and it pretty much came off as a rip off of School of Rock, which was alright, but this just really took it lower, and made it almost . . . dare I say – boring?

Honourable Mention: Speed Racer (just because it was all crazy and Matrix-like and an okay take on the cartoon, doesn’t mean I have to like it).

BIGGEST LETDOWN:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I watched it, had a good time, but it missed the magic and adventure of the first three films, and ultimately let me down. I still like it, but expected more. Perhaps over time it will grow on me more, as it has in the past year, but it still didn’t do what it could have. For a more detailed review, watch South Park: Season 12: Episode 8: The China Problem.

BIGGEST SURPRISE:

Iron Man

Going into this film I wasn’t looking for anything in particular, just maybe some cool effects and nice story line. Simply put, it went above and beyond. This film blew – me – away. Sure, the acting is what you’d expect from Downey Jr. and Paltrow, but the CG is flawless (I could never differentiate real from not), and Downey as Stark is just, just wonderful. Sure he’s a douche, but he changes his ways, and he was always smooth and funny. Do I have a bit of a man crush on RDJ? Hells yes! Why not? He’s always been a good actor, and I look forward to seeing Iron Man 2 next year. Haven’t seen The Soloist yet, but I can’t imagine it being that bad. But this film was good enough that it’s one of a few films I can re-watch without it getting tiring. Ask my friend Luke, re-watchability is huge. You want a traditional popcorn movie? This fits the bill. It’s fun, amusing and enjoyable.

There you have it! Hope you enjoyed a look back at films past! (from 2008)

CORALINE DVD REVIEW (2009)

>> Monday, August 10, 2009

A well so deep if you fell to the bottom and looked up, you would see a sky full of stars in the middle of the day.

It’s been a long while since I found myself owning a DVD without actually seeing it prior. Up until this point I had assumed Coraline was nothing more than another CG film aimed at children but hoping it would find an adult audience as well. To my surprise, I found myself watching a film made for no younger than more mature children . . . and possibly no older.

I think this because I think most adults would find this film boring. Now when I say ‘most’ I mean the general populous, not those who actually will take this film as the brilliant work of art it is, and who will have trouble giving it the patience it deserves. I myself am no stranger to ‘boring’ films per say, being subjected time and time again to them in numerous film studies classes.

A good example of another “boring” animation would be the Oscar nominated Les Triplettes de Belleville. Yet, as “boring” as it was, it was recognized internationally. Why? - Because again it was brilliant. Did I think it was brilliant when I watched it? Yes. Did I like the film and would I watch it again? No - but I can see what the people behind the film were going for, and they pulled it off with grace and style and vividness. It still doesn’t mean it’s for the average viewer.

This film comes from director Henry Selick, who also directed the wonderfully imaginative A Nightmare Before Christmas. This time it takes a different direction though and has a slightly more indie feel to it, which I’m grateful for. The last thing I need or want from Coraline is an animated cat lip-syncing to “Who Let the Dogs Out?”. It is also setting a precedent for sundry films to come, including Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, both adapted from children's books.

The fact of the matter is that Coraline, when one gets down to it, may come off as a bit dreary. The music for the most part is a bit drab, however, much like Triplettes, a person who pays attention will find themselves immersed in a world very much like that of the average childhood dream, a sort of scary yet very harmless dream. A dream that’s easier to sit through than the dialogue-absent Belleville, mind you. And like most dreams, Coraline is in a sense more real, than well, reality.

There is something unsettling about the way Coraline looks though, that reminds you of just how creepy films like Alice in Wonderland should have been, which it clearly pays homage to, and which also might explain Burton’s Alice in Wonderland coming out next year. But much like the classic Disney version, most parents will probably pop the DVD, sit their toddler and tweens in front of the TV, and walk away. This is all fine and dandy, as I believe the kids will enjoy and understand it more anyways. Than again, some may be completely freaked out and never want to see it again. But in time it won’t be surprising if the kids of today will reminisce about Coraline much like my generation talks about Return to Oz or Labyrinth, and the generation before discusses Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

And to answer your impending question, no, I won’t be surprised if we see Oz and Labyrinth at the hands of Burton soon. Can you just leave ONE childhood classic alone, please, Tim? Except for Garbage Pail Kids, do that one.

As for the DVD extras that come on this disc, they are what they are. Take my advice and don’t watch the 3-D version, it’ll just hurt your poor corneas. I watched the opening sequence and decided to flip over the disc to the 2-D version instead. I won’t watch another film in 3-D at home again, until they make polarized 3-D home theatre-capable. You get some nice explanations for the way they did some effects (I assure you not as much CG is done in the film as you think), and a feature length director’s commentary – which I’ve yet to listen to, but hear isn’t too bad.

As for the acting, Teri Hatcher and Dakota Fanning and the guy that plays the PC from the Justin Long Mac commercials all do pretty good jobs. It should be noted that this is one of the only films I actually like Dakota Fanning in. The door is open on this one. Although be cautious if you plan to step through it. You may find all those you know sporting a shiny pair of button eyes.

*Still courtesy of Alliance Atlantis

ORPHAN (2009)

>> Saturday, July 25, 2009

Annie was never this sadistic.

M. Night Shyamalan would be proud. Then again, M. Night was proud of Lady in the Water and The Happening. Why would M. Night be proud, you ask? Because like the movies that he helms on a regular basis, this one comes with a twist ending. Orphan is a film that doesn’t hide the fact that something sinister is going on with the oddly charming Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), but rather boldy states that something is wrong with her - as the tagline proclaims. Not because she looks like Damien's sister nor because she has a creepy Russian accent (which is at times oddly hypnotic and almost polite-sounding), but because she pushes a girl off of the top of a playground slide and breaks her ankle without batting an eyelash. This is of course not immediately, but enough into the film that up until this point you find yourself almost rooting for Esther hoping that everything will work out with her new mom and dad, Kate and John, played respectably by Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard.

But what’s with the ribbons around her wrists and neck that Esther wears? And why does she refuse to never take them off? This is the question that plagues you throughout the movie, almost more than wondering why she’s so deliciously evil. It reminded me of an old ghost story I heard when I was a child, about a woman who would always wear a ribbon around her neck and nobody could figure out why. Turns out when the ribbon is removed at the end of the story by her new found lover, her head falls off. Keep this story in mind when you're watching this film. I assure you I'm not giving anything away and for the most part, the twist ending is good enough you probably won’t guess it until the time comes.

Orphan does its best to keep moving at a nice pace throughout the two hour running time. If you’re not intrigued by Esther’s disturbing quietness and neatness, you'll find yourself anticipating what are normally cliché “jumping at shadow” moments - like when Esther’s adoptive mother Kate opens the fridge to grab something. The music queue suggests to stand on guard for Esther to be standing behind the door when it closes. When it does, the space is empty and the film moves along its merry little way. There are many of these moments within the film, and it does get tiring, but never tiresome.

You’ll find Orphan very creepy, quiet and subtle and you'll be surprised at times to find you're watching a thriller rather than just a regular family drama. Granted, it's a 'drama' about adopting a slightly unusual, yet gifted little girl and the struggles a family faces when accepting her into their home. Kate and John are realistic parents, with realistic problems and regular kids - which is all the more reason to feel the fear, anxiety and odd acceptance one might normally feel when blindly welcoming a stranger into their household.

The door is open on this one, as it improves upon the usual demon child genre and doesn’t resort to terribly cheap thrills. Definitely more could have been done with this premise and the idea, as is the case with most films in the horror/thriller genre, but it doesn’t fall too short. My recommendation is you go into Orphan much like you would;ve gone into Snakes on a Plane. Don’t expect anything too serious, and you should find yourself having a pretty good time. Particularly when you hear the line “I AM NOT - YOUR - MOMMY!”

*Still courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

MISSION STATEMENT

>> Friday, July 24, 2009

For the longest time imaginable I’ve been wanting to start doing film reviews for my blog Don’t Make Charlie Angry. It’s been attempted and talked about a couple of times amongst my friends and I to perhaps do a once a month video segment based a movie we would see that month. Preferably new, but depending on the situation we may have hit up Regina’s premiere discount movie theatre and seen something that was a couple months old. The fact is is that people still look up reviews on the web for older films, especially when looking through the Wal-Mart $5 movie bin. Silly Movie 2 anyone?

But more than likely it would be for newer movies, and with almost every theatre having a cheap day on one or more days of the week, it no longer has to be a choice between eating Zoodles straight from the can or seeing a movie.

My goal with this blog is to review a movie once a week, and once a month I’ll do a video review as well. The biggest problem I ran into as far as thinking about how I would do this whole thing was “how do I rate these films?”. I will be writing the review of course, accompanied by a logo for quick reference on whether I think it’s worth seeing or not seeing. The logos will be as follows:

*The yellow logo is an "Open Door". It means I think you should go see the movie.
*The red logo is a "Closed Door". It means I think you shouldn't even bother taking a peak inside.

Now don’t get me wrong, I respect a system where I could give a percentage or stars or a grade of A, B, or C. Realistically, my opinion of the film will be in the review, and based on that I won’t waste your time by saying “I give this a 7 because it’s worth seeing but it’s not the best. If I don’t think its worth seeing, you will know it by seeing a closed door. If I do think its worth your $10, then you will know it by seeing an open door. Its simple, its to the point, and it works. This is of course being said real early on in my career as a film critic, like most things in life it will undoubtedly change as I see fit, and I may find there are films that will be worthy of an in between rating, at which point I may change my rating system accordingly.

But for now, I hope you enjoy my new blog, and I hope to update it often enough on new movies, old movies, and DVD’s to keep you, the valued reader and film goer, entertained, informed and interested. This is Angry Charlie, opening his door. Welcome.